Whilst channel hoping I came across 24 hours in police custody and watched the case involving Adam White. For those you aren’t familiar with this case, Adam White was a homeowner in Leighton Buzzard. He was subject to an attempted burglary where it is thought they tried to steal his motorcycle.
The burglary went awry, and Adam Smith chased after the two burglars (who were riding a getaway motorcycle) in his 4×4 Mercedes, running them off the road resulting in serious injury to both burglars. The accident scene looked like total carnage and Adam White was arrested and subsequently charged with causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He was convicted and imprisoned for 22 months at Luton Crown Court. The burglars were initially hospitalised with a mixture of broken bones and a bleed on the brain. They were both later charged with attempt burglary. They both received suspended prison sentences.
There was a public outcry for Adam Smith. He lost his job; he went to prison for what many see as ‘protecting his home’. This was an emotional assessment of the case, and it does sit at odds with the legal position.
You can protect your home. There is a defence of using reasonable force; so, if you were confronted by two masked burglars, armed with bolt cutters, you could use force in the defence of your property or person. That includes the use of violence but the court will carefully consider what was done and whether it was reasonable. Chasing after the burglars to dish out some gratuitous violence would probably go beyond what was reasonable. Once the threat has stopped, you must also stop.
To add to Adam White’s misery, a civil claim for damages has been lodged by the two motorcycle riding burglars. There is no issue discussing this as the principle of open justice applies and anyone can apply to court to observe the proceedings. I haven’t seen the pleaded claim, but media sources suggest they are claiming a million pound in damages. It is yet to be determined how a court will assess their claim.
I see two obvious issues, the first is that one of the burglars wasn’t wearing a helmet. If he suffered a bleed on the brain which would not have occurred if he had been wearing a helmet, I could see a sizeable reduction for contributory negligence. That is for Adam Smith’s lawyers to prove. The burden rests with them. We all need to wear a helmet unless you are follower of the Sikh religion, who have a statutory defence under S.16(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which reads ‘A requirement imposed by regulations under this section shall not apply to any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban’.
The final, and perhaps more fundamental issue is a potential ex turpi causa defence to the claims. I have covered this in previous articles, but this is the illegality defence. It is a public policy principle that no court will assist a claimant who has been guilty of an illegal act. If successful, it would mean Adam Smith’s road traffic insurer will not have to pay a penny to the two burglars. This will have to be argued before a Judge as a preliminary point and a decision on that is awaited.
Gavin Grewal
TVAM Slipstream
